Post by debPost by g***@gmail.comhttps://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/rec.music.opera/GkIp1DQbGOc
No, no! I'm afraid I must disagree with this! The parallel differences in age in each case is nothing to the difference in moral compass. Sachs' and Eva's point due north, while Oktavian is but mad nor-nor-west, and the Marschallin trembles slightly toward the gorgeous East.
Sachs and Eva have known each other since the latter's childhood--Frau Sachs probably baked her biscuits--the the sudden blossoming possibilities between them spring from Pogner's ill-judged boast and promise on her behalf, and her own awakening realization of her sexual power through Walther's headlong courtship. If you're being swept along by a torrent, you will grab at anything that looks strong and steady enough to save you, and see no other way to safety until a true friend brings you ashore by the bridge. Sachs' knowledge of human nature is deep and forgiving, because his experiences of love and loss have made it so. Being in some ways a father-figure, he sees it as his duty to bring his god-daughter to the happiness she deserves and couldn't choose for herself.
The Marschallin's knowledge of human nature is also deep and forgiving, not from experiencing love and loss in her marriage, but from experiencing it outside marriage, with all that that implies. She is wise in the ways of courts and courtiers, and has probably had a serial seraglio, so to speak, of young men to tutor in courtly delights. The playful, delicate deception of her absent husband and houseful of servants is taken for granted by her, and is one of the lessons she teaches Oktavian: how to find pleasure without creating the pain of betrayal in an innocent party, and ruinous scandal for the less innocent. Sachs is surprised into love by Eva's sudden womanhood; while the Marschallin loves Oktavian, for his boyish unselfconsciousness. She knows he will be her last young lover, and wants to savor this love as long as possible. Oktavian, however, is surprised into maturity by his sudden, chivalrous love for Sophie, his desire to rescue her from an odious marriage and--a parallel here, right enough--give her all the happiness that he knows she deserves, and cannot choose for herself. The Marschallin is no more surprised than Sachs, but is much more graceful than Sachs in passing Oktavian on to his true love; but then Sachs is a cobbler and the Marschallin a court lady.
The real parallel, perhaps, is that each is a tale of love sweetly gained, with just enough bitter edge to add savour to the sweetness.
Thank you for your informative reply. You are obviously more familiar with the operas than me. But here is my more generalized take.
Consider the letter 'r'.
In a society, shouldn't everyone have rights, even those at the bottom?
But shouldn't everyone also have responsibilities, even those at the top?
And shouldn't one of those responsibilities of those at the top to protect the rights of those at the bottom?
And shouldn't even those at the bottom have the right to live normal lives?
Isn't it more normal for persons who are close in age as Eva and Walther are (and as Octavian and Sophie are) to get married to each other?
Isn't a moral of both operas that just because one is at the top of the pecking order, doesn't mean that one should turn everything into a power trip just because one has the upper hand.
I don't see either opera as being primarily about social stratification, rights and responsibilities--unlike 'The Marriage of Figaro,' which goes into both issues thoroughly, and with mordant wit. When Walther comes to Nueremberg on business from his landed estate, he meets his banker's daughter, and decides that the city life will suit him very well--Nueremberg offers him a treasure and prize that he will never find elsewhere. As I see it, when the opera opens, he's negotiating the sale of his estate, to buy a town house and investments. So, who is on top? Walther, the aristocrat? Eva, who is sought after? Pogner, who has rashly committed her to marry a Master? Sachs, to whom they all go for wisdom and advice? One of the points made by Pogner is that the merchants and tradesmen of Nueremberg are social equals in their love of their art, and the question is whether a part-time officer and country nobleman can aspire to equality with them. This is where Beckmesser, out of jealousy, does abuse his responsibility as Marker to get Walther disqualified, by sticking to every formal convention which Walther has never learned, in the face of his natural talent and inspiration. Sachs sees deeper, and would willingly grant Walther the right to compete, but won't go against the decision of the Masters.
Of course people similar in age are going to pair off, and it is normal, and the conclusion of each opera celebrates it. Although Sachs is too wise to endure 'King Mark's sorrow', he will comfort his disappointment with Eva's happiness. Likewise the Marschallin, in 'giving' Oktavian to Sophie, says farewell to her youth, and is left with the same bittersweet comfort. Though in her case, remember, there's never a question of her marrying Oktavian, as she's married already. Who is at the bottom here, or deprived of 'normal lives?'
As to society in 'Der Rosenkavalier:' the Marschallin and Oktavian are upper-class. Baron Ochs is a couple of tiers lower in the social scale, and it's clear that Sophie's parents aren't that skilled at social climbing, if they'll settle for him. Hugo von Hoffmansthal was a snob, as is shown by Ochs' title, 'Baron Ochs auf (not /von/) Lerchenau--clearly he isn't the social equal of the librettist! Oktavian's clumsy impersonation of a maidservant spurs him to some even clumsier attempts to grope her--Ochs' interpretation of his 'rights,' even more clearly expressed when he insists the marriage contract with the Faninals should grant him a 'Morgengabe'--normally a gift the husband made to his wife on finding her to be a virgin on her wedding night, but which Ochs sees as the price of his conferring noble status on Sophie. He is a most complete picture of an ill-educated pig, and any humiliation that the handsome, intelligent, well-bred, chivalrous Oktavian (in protecting the rights of the middle-class Sophie) can visit upon him is all right with Hoffmansthal. Ochs has a right to a normal life, as long as it's a suitable life for a pig. It's worth remembering that, unlike Mastersingers, this is satire, mocking the conventions and pretensions of a couple of generations before--and perhaps asking the audience whether it may have pretensions of its own.
So no, I don't see the moral you do, because the 'pecking order' is less clear in Mastersingers, and sent up in Rosenkavalier. The 'upper hand' in both cases shifts from one character to another, and the only people on 'power trips' are the ones who are laughably outclassed, and really shouldn't aspire to love.